Archive

When you control the pipes, you control the ecosystem. At the very least, you can impose your will on a good portion of the environment. This is what the mobile industry has come down to in the United States. Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint have as much or more say about the devices that eventually reach consumers hands than the platform providers or manufacturers.

Why do Android device updates take so long? Ask the carriers. Why are there half a dozen different skins for Android smartphones? Ask the carriers. Why do high-end smartphones cost what they do? Ask the carriers. Why did Nokia have to wait to enter the U.S. market with its new Lumia line? Ask the carriers. Why are there a ton of different versions of the Samsung Galaxy? Ask … you get the picture.

The Requirements Of The Carriers

Motorola Mobility CEO Sanjay Jha sat down with The Verge at the Consumer Electronics show this week and made the comment that “Verizon and AT&T don’t want seven stock ICS devices on their shelves … The vast majority of the changes we make to the OS are to meet the requirements of the carriers.”

Think about that last sentence for a second. “The requirements of the carriers.” Like it or not, the carriers are the gatekeepers to the entire mobile ecosystem in the United States. Hence, the carriers can make almost any demands and the original equipment manufacturers are forced to comply. This is why we see the skins on various Android smartphones like TouchWiz for Samsung and Sense from HTC.

The problem for Android and carrier-driven differentiation is fairly simple. Most OEMs are not very good at software. Motorola, for instance, has struggled for years in coming up with useful, dynamic and functional user interfaces. HTC is a lot better and Sense is actually an enjoyable interface on its Android smartphones. Samsung is a different story altogether.

Samsung Sets The Tone

Samsung is on a course to be the largest smartphone manufacturer on the planet. How have they done this? Outside of the bland argument that “they have copied everything Apple has ever done,” the answer is easy to understand. Samsung is completely willing to do whatever Google, Microsoft or the carriers want. More than any other company, Samsung plays the current mobile ecosystem to great success. Be everything to everybody. It is a brilliant strategy.

Samsung wanted to launch the original Samsung Galaxy S on every carrier in the U.S. That was not going to happen though if every device was exactly the same. That is why we have four different devices that are ostensibly the same hardware. Sprint wanted its Galaxy S to have a keyboard and use WiMax “4G.” Hey, no problem. AT&T wanted a slimmed down version that looked like an iPhone. This can be done. Verizon wanted something similar but looked different than AT&T’s. That should not be a problem.

By being pliant to the their wishes, Samsung gives the carriers power and to a certain extent hamstrings the rest of the OEM and mobile operating system ecosystem. To keep up with Samsung, the rest of the Android OEMs have to attempt to play the same game.

In The Verge’s interview with Jha, it sounds like he is fed up with trying to match Samsung and the rest of the OEMs and the carrier requirements. Jha understands that to make money in the Android ecosystem, Motorola smartphones are going to need to be different. Jha said this week that Motorola is going to make fewer phones and, presumably, think outside of the rat race that Android has become.

The Real Source Of Fragmentation

More than any other force, the carriers are responsible for the “fragmentation” of Android. The individual skins are not a specific requirement, but not having several stock Android devices on the shelves (at least one with that option would be nice) forces the OEMs’ hands. When it comes to device updates, such as what phones will get Android Ice Cream Sandwich, the carriers dictate how much data will flow through their pipes. The OEMs are not outside of blame for updates but the fact of the matter is that the carriers are the primary drivers of the fact that each OEM has to come out with a new Android device seemingly every other week. That puts a huge burden on the software integration departments of the OEMs that have to update each device.

Google chairman Erik Schmidt says that Android is not fragmented and argues that differentiation is a good thing. Hey, variety is the spice of life, yes? To a certain extent, he is not wrong. Personally, I do not want seven stock Android devices to choose from either. The problem comes when the skins, screen sizes and lack of updates make it difficult for developers to support several different types of Android.

Microsoft, Windows Phone and its biggest champion, Nokia, are not immune for the whip of the carriers either. One of the reasons that the Lumia line was not released to the U.S. before the end of 2011 was that Nokia had to navigate the individual wishes of every carrier. T-Mobile made it easy for Nokia by basically saying, “we do not mind taking a stock Windows Phone Lumia 710.” It is likely that no other carrier is going to sell the Lumia 710, so that is differentiation in and of itself. But AT&T was not having any of it. The Lumia 900 is what Nokia delivered and it is different from not just T-Mobile’s 710, but also the Lumia 800 that most of Europe got. Verizon will likely take something akin to the 900, but it will not want it to be exactly the same thing that AT&T got. Nokia is willing to play this game because it does not have much of a choice. Samsung set the precedent with the carriers and Nokia does not have the U.S. clout or the hype of Apple’s iPhone to defy what the carriers’ want.

Apple is the one OEM that stands outside of all these politics. The smartphone revolution was started when Apple released the original iPhone. It was such a revelation that it has become a symbol as much as a smartphone. Apple can dictate terms whereas the other OEMs cannot. It would be interesting to go back into a deviant version of history and replace Apple with Motorola or some other OEM and see if Apple’s strategy remained the same or if it would be forced to carrier whims.

The gatekeepers set the terms. Until a real alternative is created and realistically implemented, this is the way the mobile industry in the U.S. will continue into the future. Outside of Apple and Google creating their own data networks, terms will be set by Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint for years to come.

Does Apple and iOS reign supreme? Can Android smother the entire ecosystem with sheer numbers? Is the clock ticking for Research In Motion and BlackBerry? The Mobile Platform Game of Thrones examines the developments and developers in the mobile OS wars to give an extensive view of what is happening and what is on the horizon in the evolution of smart devices.

When you control the pipes, you control the ecosystem. At the very least, you can impose your will on a good portion of the environment. This is what the mobile industry has come down to in the United States. Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint have as much or more say about the devices that eventually reach consumers hands than the platform providers or manufacturers.

Why do Android device updates take so long? Ask the carriers. Why are there half a dozen different skins for Android smartphones? Ask the carriers. Why do high-end smartphones cost what they do? Ask the carriers. Why did Nokia have to wait to enter the U.S. market with its new Lumia line? Ask the carriers. Why are there a ton of different versions of the Samsung Galaxy? Ask … you get the picture.

The Requirements Of The Carriers

Motorola Mobility CEO Sanjay Jha sat down with The Verge at the Consumer Electronics show this week and made the comment that “Verizon and AT&T don’t want seven stock ICS devices on their shelves … The vast majority of the changes we make to the OS are to meet the requirements of the carriers.”

Think about that last sentence for a second. “The requirements of the carriers.” Like it or not, the carriers are the gatekeepers to the entire mobile ecosystem in the United States. Hence, the carriers can make almost any demands and the original equipment manufacturers are forced to comply. This is why we see the skins on various Android smartphones like TouchWiz for Samsung and Sense from HTC.

The problem for Android and carrier-driven differentiation is fairly simple. Most OEMs are not very good at software. Motorola, for instance, has struggled for years in coming up with useful, dynamic and functional user interfaces. HTC is a lot better and Sense is actually an enjoyable interface on its Android smartphones. Samsung is a different story altogether.

Samsung Sets The Tone

Samsung is on a course to be the largest smartphone manufacturer on the planet. How have they done this? Outside of the bland argument that “they have copied everything Apple has ever done,” the answer is easy to understand. Samsung is completely willing to do whatever Google, Microsoft or the carriers want. More than any other company, Samsung plays the current mobile ecosystem to great success. Be everything to everybody. It is a brilliant strategy.

Samsung wanted to launch the original Samsung Galaxy S on every carrier in the U.S. That was not going to happen though if every device was exactly the same. That is why we have four different devices that are ostensibly the same hardware. Sprint wanted its Galaxy S to have a keyboard and use WiMax “4G.” Hey, no problem. AT&T wanted a slimmed down version that looked like an iPhone. This can be done. Verizon wanted something similar but looked different than AT&T’s. That should not be a problem.

By being pliant to the their wishes, Samsung gives the carriers power and to a certain extent hamstrings the rest of the OEM and mobile operating system ecosystem. To keep up with Samsung, the rest of the Android OEMs have to attempt to play the same game.

In The Verge’s interview with Jha, it sounds like he is fed up with trying to match Samsung and the rest of the OEMs and the carrier requirements. Jha understands that to make money in the Android ecosystem, Motorola smartphones are going to need to be different. Jha said this week that Motorola is going to make fewer phones and, presumably, think outside of the rat race that Android has become.

The Real Source Of Fragmentation

More than any other force, the carriers are responsible for the “fragmentation” of Android. The individual skins are not a specific requirement, but not having several stock Android devices on the shelves (at least one with that option would be nice) forces the OEMs’ hands. When it comes to device updates, such as what phones will get Android Ice Cream Sandwich, the carriers dictate how much data will flow through their pipes. The OEMs are not outside of blame for updates but the fact of the matter is that the carriers are the primary drivers of the fact that each OEM has to come out with a new Android device seemingly every other week. That puts a huge burden on the software integration departments of the OEMs that have to update each device.

Google chairman Erik Schmidt says that Android is not fragmented and argues that differentiation is a good thing. Hey, variety is the spice of life, yes? To a certain extent, he is not wrong. Personally, I do not want seven stock Android devices to choose from either. The problem comes when the skins, screen sizes and lack of updates make it difficult for developers to support several different types of Android.

Microsoft, Windows Phone and its biggest champion, Nokia, are not immune for the whip of the carriers either. One of the reasons that the Lumia line was not released to the U.S. before the end of 2011 was that Nokia had to navigate the individual wishes of every carrier. T-Mobile made it easy for Nokia by basically saying, “we do not mind taking a stock Windows Phone Lumia 710.” It is likely that no other carrier is going to sell the Lumia 710, so that is differentiation in and of itself. But AT&T was not having any of it. The Lumia 900 is what Nokia delivered and it is different from not just T-Mobile’s 710, but also the Lumia 800 that most of Europe got. Verizon will likely take something akin to the 900, but it will not want it to be exactly the same thing that AT&T got. Nokia is willing to play this game because it does not have much of a choice. Samsung set the precedent with the carriers and Nokia does not have the U.S. clout or the hype of Apple’s iPhone to defy what the carriers’ want.

Apple is the one OEM that stands outside of all these politics. The smartphone revolution was started when Apple released the original iPhone. It was such a revelation that it has become a symbol as much as a smartphone. Apple can dictate terms whereas the other OEMs cannot. It would be interesting to go back into a deviant version of history and replace Apple with Motorola or some other OEM and see if Apple’s strategy remained the same or if it would be forced to carrier whims.

The gatekeepers set the terms. Until a real alternative is created and realistically implemented, this is the way the mobile industry in the U.S. will continue into the future. Outside of Apple and Google creating their own data networks, terms will be set by Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint for years to come.

Does Apple and iOS reign supreme? Can Android smother the entire ecosystem with sheer numbers? Is the clock ticking for Research In Motion and BlackBerry? The Mobile Platform Game of Thrones examines the developments and developers in the mobile OS wars to give an extensive view of what is happening and what is on the horizon in the evolution of smart devices.

When you control the pipes, you control the ecosystem. At the very least, you can impose your will on a good portion of the environment. This is what the mobile industry has come down to in the United States. Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint have as much or more say about the devices that eventually reach consumers hands than the platform providers or manufacturers.

Why do Android device updates take so long? Ask the carriers. Why are there half a dozen different skins for Android smartphones? Ask the carriers. Why do high-end smartphones cost what they do? Ask the carriers. Why did Nokia have to wait to enter the U.S. market with its new Lumia line? Ask the carriers. Why are there a ton of different versions of the Samsung Galaxy? Ask … you get the picture.

The Requirements Of The Carriers

Motorola Mobility CEO Sanjay Jha sat down with The Verge at the Consumer Electronics show this week and made the comment that “Verizon and AT&T don’t want seven stock ICS devices on their shelves … The vast majority of the changes we make to the OS are to meet the requirements of the carriers.”

Think about that last sentence for a second. “The requirements of the carriers.” Like it or not, the carriers are the gatekeepers to the entire mobile ecosystem in the United States. Hence, the carriers can make almost any demands and the original equipment manufacturers are forced to comply. This is why we see the skins on various Android smartphones like TouchWiz for Samsung and Sense from HTC.

The problem for Android and carrier-driven differentiation is fairly simple. Most OEMs are not very good at software. Motorola, for instance, has struggled for years in coming up with useful, dynamic and functional user interfaces. HTC is a lot better and Sense is actually an enjoyable interface on its Android smartphones. Samsung is a different story altogether.

Samsung Sets The Tone

Samsung is on a course to be the largest smartphone manufacturer on the planet. How have they done this? Outside of the bland argument that “they have copied everything Apple has ever done,” the answer is easy to understand. Samsung is completely willing to do whatever Google, Microsoft or the carriers want. More than any other company, Samsung plays the current mobile ecosystem to great success. Be everything to everybody. It is a brilliant strategy.

Samsung wanted to launch the original Samsung Galaxy S on every carrier in the U.S. That was not going to happen though if every device was exactly the same. That is why we have four different devices that are ostensibly the same hardware. Sprint wanted its Galaxy S to have a keyboard and use WiMax “4G.” Hey, no problem. AT&T wanted a slimmed down version that looked like an iPhone. This can be done. Verizon wanted something similar but looked different than AT&T’s. That should not be a problem.

By being pliant to the their wishes, Samsung gives the carriers power and to a certain extent hamstrings the rest of the OEM and mobile operating system ecosystem. To keep up with Samsung, the rest of the Android OEMs have to attempt to play the same game.

In The Verge’s interview with Jha, it sounds like he is fed up with trying to match Samsung and the rest of the OEMs and the carrier requirements. Jha understands that to make money in the Android ecosystem, Motorola smartphones are going to need to be different. Jha said this week that Motorola is going to make fewer phones and, presumably, think outside of the rat race that Android has become.

The Real Source Of Fragmentation

More than any other force, the carriers are responsible for the “fragmentation” of Android. The individual skins are not a specific requirement, but not having several stock Android devices on the shelves (at least one with that option would be nice) forces the OEMs’ hands. When it comes to device updates, such as what phones will get Android Ice Cream Sandwich, the carriers dictate how much data will flow through their pipes. The OEMs are not outside of blame for updates but the fact of the matter is that the carriers are the primary drivers of the fact that each OEM has to come out with a new Android device seemingly every other week. That puts a huge burden on the software integration departments of the OEMs that have to update each device.

Google chairman Erik Schmidt says that Android is not fragmented and argues that differentiation is a good thing. Hey, variety is the spice of life, yes? To a certain extent, he is not wrong. Personally, I do not want seven stock Android devices to choose from either. The problem comes when the skins, screen sizes and lack of updates make it difficult for developers to support several different types of Android.

Microsoft, Windows Phone and its biggest champion, Nokia, are not immune for the whip of the carriers either. One of the reasons that the Lumia line was not released to the U.S. before the end of 2011 was that Nokia had to navigate the individual wishes of every carrier. T-Mobile made it easy for Nokia by basically saying, “we do not mind taking a stock Windows Phone Lumia 710.” It is likely that no other carrier is going to sell the Lumia 710, so that is differentiation in and of itself. But AT&T was not having any of it. The Lumia 900 is what Nokia delivered and it is different from not just T-Mobile’s 710, but also the Lumia 800 that most of Europe got. Verizon will likely take something akin to the 900, but it will not want it to be exactly the same thing that AT&T got. Nokia is willing to play this game because it does not have much of a choice. Samsung set the precedent with the carriers and Nokia does not have the U.S. clout or the hype of Apple’s iPhone to defy what the carriers’ want.

Apple is the one OEM that stands outside of all these politics. The smartphone revolution was started when Apple released the original iPhone. It was such a revelation that it has become a symbol as much as a smartphone. Apple can dictate terms whereas the other OEMs cannot. It would be interesting to go back into a deviant version of history and replace Apple with Motorola or some other OEM and see if Apple’s strategy remained the same or if it would be forced to carrier whims.

The gatekeepers set the terms. Until a real alternative is created and realistically implemented, this is the way the mobile industry in the U.S. will continue into the future. Outside of Apple and Google creating their own data networks, terms will be set by Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint for years to come.

Does Apple and iOS reign supreme? Can Android smother the entire ecosystem with sheer numbers? Is the clock ticking for Research In Motion and BlackBerry? The Mobile Platform Game of Thrones examines the developments and developers in the mobile OS wars to give an extensive view of what is happening and what is on the horizon in the evolution of smart devices.

When you control the pipes, you control the ecosystem. At the very least, you can impose your will on a good portion of the environment. This is what the mobile industry has come down to in the United States. Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint have as much or more say about the devices that eventually reach consumers hands than the platform providers or manufacturers.

Why do Android device updates take so long? Ask the carriers. Why are there half a dozen different skins for Android smartphones? Ask the carriers. Why do high-end smartphones cost what they do? Ask the carriers. Why did Nokia have to wait to enter the U.S. market with its new Lumia line? Ask the carriers. Why are there a ton of different versions of the Samsung Galaxy? Ask … you get the picture.

The Requirements Of The Carriers

Motorola Mobility CEO Sanjay Jha sat down with The Verge at the Consumer Electronics show this week and made the comment that “Verizon and AT&T don’t want seven stock ICS devices on their shelves … The vast majority of the changes we make to the OS are to meet the requirements of the carriers.”

Think about that last sentence for a second. “The requirements of the carriers.” Like it or not, the carriers are the gatekeepers to the entire mobile ecosystem in the United States. Hence, the carriers can make almost any demands and the original equipment manufacturers are forced to comply. This is why we see the skins on various Android smartphones like TouchWiz for Samsung and Sense from HTC.

The problem for Android and carrier-driven differentiation is fairly simple. Most OEMs are not very good at software. Motorola, for instance, has struggled for years in coming up with useful, dynamic and functional user interfaces. HTC is a lot better and Sense is actually an enjoyable interface on its Android smartphones. Samsung is a different story altogether.

Samsung Sets The Tone

Samsung is on a course to be the largest smartphone manufacturer on the planet. How have they done this? Outside of the bland argument that “they have copied everything Apple has ever done,” the answer is easy to understand. Samsung is completely willing to do whatever Google, Microsoft or the carriers want. More than any other company, Samsung plays the current mobile ecosystem to great success. Be everything to everybody. It is a brilliant strategy.

Samsung wanted to launch the original Samsung Galaxy S on every carrier in the U.S. That was not going to happen though if every device was exactly the same. That is why we have four different devices that are ostensibly the same hardware. Sprint wanted its Galaxy S to have a keyboard and use WiMax “4G.” Hey, no problem. AT&T wanted a slimmed down version that looked like an iPhone. This can be done. Verizon wanted something similar but looked different than AT&T’s. That should not be a problem.

By being pliant to the their wishes, Samsung gives the carriers power and to a certain extent hamstrings the rest of the OEM and mobile operating system ecosystem. To keep up with Samsung, the rest of the Android OEMs have to attempt to play the same game.

In The Verge’s interview with Jha, it sounds like he is fed up with trying to match Samsung and the rest of the OEMs and the carrier requirements. Jha understands that to make money in the Android ecosystem, Motorola smartphones are going to need to be different. Jha said this week that Motorola is going to make fewer phones and, presumably, think outside of the rat race that Android has become.

The Real Source Of Fragmentation

More than any other force, the carriers are responsible for the “fragmentation” of Android. The individual skins are not a specific requirement, but not having several stock Android devices on the shelves (at least one with that option would be nice) forces the OEMs’ hands. When it comes to device updates, such as what phones will get Android Ice Cream Sandwich, the carriers dictate how much data will flow through their pipes. The OEMs are not outside of blame for updates but the fact of the matter is that the carriers are the primary drivers of the fact that each OEM has to come out with a new Android device seemingly every other week. That puts a huge burden on the software integration departments of the OEMs that have to update each device.

Google chairman Erik Schmidt says that Android is not fragmented and argues that differentiation is a good thing. Hey, variety is the spice of life, yes? To a certain extent, he is not wrong. Personally, I do not want seven stock Android devices to choose from either. The problem comes when the skins, screen sizes and lack of updates make it difficult for developers to support several different types of Android.

Microsoft, Windows Phone and its biggest champion, Nokia, are not immune for the whip of the carriers either. One of the reasons that the Lumia line was not released to the U.S. before the end of 2011 was that Nokia had to navigate the individual wishes of every carrier. T-Mobile made it easy for Nokia by basically saying, “we do not mind taking a stock Windows Phone Lumia 710.” It is likely that no other carrier is going to sell the Lumia 710, so that is differentiation in and of itself. But AT&T was not having any of it. The Lumia 900 is what Nokia delivered and it is different from not just T-Mobile’s 710, but also the Lumia 800 that most of Europe got. Verizon will likely take something akin to the 900, but it will not want it to be exactly the same thing that AT&T got. Nokia is willing to play this game because it does not have much of a choice. Samsung set the precedent with the carriers and Nokia does not have the U.S. clout or the hype of Apple’s iPhone to defy what the carriers’ want.

Apple is the one OEM that stands outside of all these politics. The smartphone revolution was started when Apple released the original iPhone. It was such a revelation that it has become a symbol as much as a smartphone. Apple can dictate terms whereas the other OEMs cannot. It would be interesting to go back into a deviant version of history and replace Apple with Motorola or some other OEM and see if Apple’s strategy remained the same or if it would be forced to carrier whims.

The gatekeepers set the terms. Until a real alternative is created and realistically implemented, this is the way the mobile industry in the U.S. will continue into the future. Outside of Apple and Google creating their own data networks, terms will be set by Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint for years to come.

Does Apple and iOS reign supreme? Can Android smother the entire ecosystem with sheer numbers? Is the clock ticking for Research In Motion and BlackBerry? The Mobile Platform Game of Thrones examines the developments and developers in the mobile OS wars to give an extensive view of what is happening and what is on the horizon in the evolution of smart devices.

When you control the pipes, you control the ecosystem. At the very least, you can impose your will on a good portion of the environment. This is what the mobile industry has come down to in the United States. Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint have as much or more say about the devices that eventually reach consumers hands than the platform providers or manufacturers.

Why do Android device updates take so long? Ask the carriers. Why are there half a dozen different skins for Android smartphones? Ask the carriers. Why do high-end smartphones cost what they do? Ask the carriers. Why did Nokia have to wait to enter the U.S. market with its new Lumia line? Ask the carriers. Why are there a ton of different versions of the Samsung Galaxy? Ask … you get the picture.

The Requirements Of The Carriers

Motorola Mobility CEO Sanjay Jha sat down with The Verge at the Consumer Electronics show this week and made the comment that “Verizon and AT&T don’t want seven stock ICS devices on their shelves … The vast majority of the changes we make to the OS are to meet the requirements of the carriers.”

Think about that last sentence for a second. “The requirements of the carriers.” Like it or not, the carriers are the gatekeepers to the entire mobile ecosystem in the United States. Hence, the carriers can make almost any demands and the original equipment manufacturers are forced to comply. This is why we see the skins on various Android smartphones like TouchWiz for Samsung and Sense from HTC.

The problem for Android and carrier-driven differentiation is fairly simple. Most OEMs are not very good at software. Motorola, for instance, has struggled for years in coming up with useful, dynamic and functional user interfaces. HTC is a lot better and Sense is actually an enjoyable interface on its Android smartphones. Samsung is a different story altogether.

Samsung Sets The Tone

Samsung is on a course to be the largest smartphone manufacturer on the planet. How have they done this? Outside of the bland argument that “they have copied everything Apple has ever done,” the answer is easy to understand. Samsung is completely willing to do whatever Google, Microsoft or the carriers want. More than any other company, Samsung plays the current mobile ecosystem to great success. Be everything to everybody. It is a brilliant strategy.

Samsung wanted to launch the original Samsung Galaxy S on every carrier in the U.S. That was not going to happen though if every device was exactly the same. That is why we have four different devices that are ostensibly the same hardware. Sprint wanted its Galaxy S to have a keyboard and use WiMax “4G.” Hey, no problem. AT&T wanted a slimmed down version that looked like an iPhone. This can be done. Verizon wanted something similar but looked different than AT&T’s. That should not be a problem.

By being pliant to the their wishes, Samsung gives the carriers power and to a certain extent hamstrings the rest of the OEM and mobile operating system ecosystem. To keep up with Samsung, the rest of the Android OEMs have to attempt to play the same game.

In The Verge’s interview with Jha, it sounds like he is fed up with trying to match Samsung and the rest of the OEMs and the carrier requirements. Jha understands that to make money in the Android ecosystem, Motorola smartphones are going to need to be different. Jha said this week that Motorola is going to make fewer phones and, presumably, think outside of the rat race that Android has become.

The Real Source Of Fragmentation

More than any other force, the carriers are responsible for the “fragmentation” of Android. The individual skins are not a specific requirement, but not having several stock Android devices on the shelves (at least one with that option would be nice) forces the OEMs’ hands. When it comes to device updates, such as what phones will get Android Ice Cream Sandwich, the carriers dictate how much data will flow through their pipes. The OEMs are not outside of blame for updates but the fact of the matter is that the carriers are the primary drivers of the fact that each OEM has to come out with a new Android device seemingly every other week. That puts a huge burden on the software integration departments of the OEMs that have to update each device.

Google chairman Erik Schmidt says that Android is not fragmented and argues that differentiation is a good thing. Hey, variety is the spice of life, yes? To a certain extent, he is not wrong. Personally, I do not want seven stock Android devices to choose from either. The problem comes when the skins, screen sizes and lack of updates make it difficult for developers to support several different types of Android.

Microsoft, Windows Phone and its biggest champion, Nokia, are not immune for the whip of the carriers either. One of the reasons that the Lumia line was not released to the U.S. before the end of 2011 was that Nokia had to navigate the individual wishes of every carrier. T-Mobile made it easy for Nokia by basically saying, “we do not mind taking a stock Windows Phone Lumia 710.” It is likely that no other carrier is going to sell the Lumia 710, so that is differentiation in and of itself. But AT&T was not having any of it. The Lumia 900 is what Nokia delivered and it is different from not just T-Mobile’s 710, but also the Lumia 800 that most of Europe got. Verizon will likely take something akin to the 900, but it will not want it to be exactly the same thing that AT&T got. Nokia is willing to play this game because it does not have much of a choice. Samsung set the precedent with the carriers and Nokia does not have the U.S. clout or the hype of Apple’s iPhone to defy what the carriers’ want.

Apple is the one OEM that stands outside of all these politics. The smartphone revolution was started when Apple released the original iPhone. It was such a revelation that it has become a symbol as much as a smartphone. Apple can dictate terms whereas the other OEMs cannot. It would be interesting to go back into a deviant version of history and replace Apple with Motorola or some other OEM and see if Apple’s strategy remained the same or if it would be forced to carrier whims.

The gatekeepers set the terms. Until a real alternative is created and realistically implemented, this is the way the mobile industry in the U.S. will continue into the future. Outside of Apple and Google creating their own data networks, terms will be set by Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint for years to come.

Does Apple and iOS reign supreme? Can Android smother the entire ecosystem with sheer numbers? Is the clock ticking for Research In Motion and BlackBerry? The Mobile Platform Game of Thrones examines the developments and developers in the mobile OS wars to give an extensive view of what is happening and what is on the horizon in the evolution of smart devices.

When you control the pipes, you control the ecosystem. At the very least, you can impose your will on a good portion of the environment. This is what the mobile industry has come down to in the United States. Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint have as much or more say about the devices that eventually reach consumers hands than the platform providers or manufacturers.

Why do Android device updates take so long? Ask the carriers. Why are there half a dozen different skins for Android smartphones? Ask the carriers. Why do high-end smartphones cost what they do? Ask the carriers. Why did Nokia have to wait to enter the U.S. market with its new Lumia line? Ask the carriers. Why are there a ton of different versions of the Samsung Galaxy? Ask … you get the picture.

The Requirements Of The Carriers

Motorola Mobility CEO Sanjay Jha sat down with The Verge at the Consumer Electronics show this week and made the comment that “Verizon and AT&T don’t want seven stock ICS devices on their shelves … The vast majority of the changes we make to the OS are to meet the requirements of the carriers.”

Think about that last sentence for a second. “The requirements of the carriers.” Like it or not, the carriers are the gatekeepers to the entire mobile ecosystem in the United States. Hence, the carriers can make almost any demands and the original equipment manufacturers are forced to comply. This is why we see the skins on various Android smartphones like TouchWiz for Samsung and Sense from HTC.

The problem for Android and carrier-driven differentiation is fairly simple. Most OEMs are not very good at software. Motorola, for instance, has struggled for years in coming up with useful, dynamic and functional user interfaces. HTC is a lot better and Sense is actually an enjoyable interface on its Android smartphones. Samsung is a different story altogether.

Samsung Sets The Tone

Samsung is on a course to be the largest smartphone manufacturer on the planet. How have they done this? Outside of the bland argument that “they have copied everything Apple has ever done,” the answer is easy to understand. Samsung is completely willing to do whatever Google, Microsoft or the carriers want. More than any other company, Samsung plays the current mobile ecosystem to great success. Be everything to everybody. It is a brilliant strategy.

Samsung wanted to launch the original Samsung Galaxy S on every carrier in the U.S. That was not going to happen though if every device was exactly the same. That is why we have four different devices that are ostensibly the same hardware. Sprint wanted its Galaxy S to have a keyboard and use WiMax “4G.” Hey, no problem. AT&T wanted a slimmed down version that looked like an iPhone. This can be done. Verizon wanted something similar but looked different than AT&T’s. That should not be a problem.

By being pliant to the their wishes, Samsung gives the carriers power and to a certain extent hamstrings the rest of the OEM and mobile operating system ecosystem. To keep up with Samsung, the rest of the Android OEMs have to attempt to play the same game.

In The Verge’s interview with Jha, it sounds like he is fed up with trying to match Samsung and the rest of the OEMs and the carrier requirements. Jha understands that to make money in the Android ecosystem, Motorola smartphones are going to need to be different. Jha said this week that Motorola is going to make fewer phones and, presumably, think outside of the rat race that Android has become.

The Real Source Of Fragmentation

More than any other force, the carriers are responsible for the “fragmentation” of Android. The individual skins are not a specific requirement, but not having several stock Android devices on the shelves (at least one with that option would be nice) forces the OEMs’ hands. When it comes to device updates, such as what phones will get Android Ice Cream Sandwich, the carriers dictate how much data will flow through their pipes. The OEMs are not outside of blame for updates but the fact of the matter is that the carriers are the primary drivers of the fact that each OEM has to come out with a new Android device seemingly every other week. That puts a huge burden on the software integration departments of the OEMs that have to update each device.

Google chairman Erik Schmidt says that Android is not fragmented and argues that differentiation is a good thing. Hey, variety is the spice of life, yes? To a certain extent, he is not wrong. Personally, I do not want seven stock Android devices to choose from either. The problem comes when the skins, screen sizes and lack of updates make it difficult for developers to support several different types of Android.

Microsoft, Windows Phone and its biggest champion, Nokia, are not immune for the whip of the carriers either. One of the reasons that the Lumia line was not released to the U.S. before the end of 2011 was that Nokia had to navigate the individual wishes of every carrier. T-Mobile made it easy for Nokia by basically saying, “we do not mind taking a stock Windows Phone Lumia 710.” It is likely that no other carrier is going to sell the Lumia 710, so that is differentiation in and of itself. But AT&T was not having any of it. The Lumia 900 is what Nokia delivered and it is different from not just T-Mobile’s 710, but also the Lumia 800 that most of Europe got. Verizon will likely take something akin to the 900, but it will not want it to be exactly the same thing that AT&T got. Nokia is willing to play this game because it does not have much of a choice. Samsung set the precedent with the carriers and Nokia does not have the U.S. clout or the hype of Apple’s iPhone to defy what the carriers’ want.

Apple is the one OEM that stands outside of all these politics. The smartphone revolution was started when Apple released the original iPhone. It was such a revelation that it has become a symbol as much as a smartphone. Apple can dictate terms whereas the other OEMs cannot. It would be interesting to go back into a deviant version of history and replace Apple with Motorola or some other OEM and see if Apple’s strategy remained the same or if it would be forced to carrier whims.

The gatekeepers set the terms. Until a real alternative is created and realistically implemented, this is the way the mobile industry in the U.S. will continue into the future. Outside of Apple and Google creating their own data networks, terms will be set by Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint for years to come.

Does Apple and iOS reign supreme? Can Android smother the entire ecosystem with sheer numbers? Is the clock ticking for Research In Motion and BlackBerry? The Mobile Platform Game of Thrones examines the developments and developers in the mobile OS wars to give an extensive view of what is happening and what is on the horizon in the evolution of smart devices.

Editor’s note: This morning news broke that Google has acquired Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion. The move is a fork for Google in that it is getting into the device business on a large scale for the first time in its history. The big discussion is surrounds the fact that part of Google’s acquisition of Motorola is to “defend Android” from patent lawsuits from the likes of Microsoft, Apple and others. Motorola has 17,000 mobile patents with another 7,500 pending. Google hopes to use those patents to protect Android and the entire ecosystem, including other Android original equipment manufacturers outside of Motorola, against attacks.

The below transcript is the highlights from the conference call that Google and Motorola held this morning after the announcement. Questions from analysts and financial companies have been stripped so as to show the answers to pertinent issues from Google and Motorola.

Larry Page – Google CEO

Opening Remarks

I’m very excited to announce that we have entered into an agreement to acquire Motorola Mobility this morning, an agreement that has been unanimously approved by both Boards. I believe the combination of the two companies is going to create tremendous shareholder value, drive great user experiences and accelerate innovation.

In May 2005 I met Andy Rubin for the first time. Andy had a crazy vision for the mobile industry. He wanted to align the standards across the mobile industry and the Internet. Andy felt that it was inefficient for each hardware manufacturer to have developed software constantly. Andy had a vision for an open-source platform that would accelerate the pace of innovation in the industry and deliver compelling user experiences.

That was just six years ago and Android is now one of the leading platforms in the industry. Andy has grown tremendously — or Android, I should say, has grown tremendously since its launch in November of 2007. More than 150 million Android devices have been activated worldwide through a network of 39 manufacturers, 231 carriers in 123 countries. And there’s more than 550,000 Android devices are lit up every day, that’s just amazing progress.

Turning our attention to Motorola Mobility, they have an amazing track record of over 80 years of innovation in communications technology and the development of intellectual property, which helped drive the remarkable revolution in mobile computing we are all enjoying today.

Motorola’s innovation in the mobile space has led to a number of industry milestones, including the introduction of the world’s first portable cell phone nearly 30 years ago and the StarTAC, the smallest and lightest phone on earth at the time of the launch.

Not long after the launch after Android Motorola Mobility had a new CEO and he got together with Andy and they shared a vision for the mobile industry. Sanjay made a big bet; he bet big on Android as the sole operating system across all of Motorola’s smartphone and tablet devices. That bet has seen him transform Motorola Mobility into one of the leading Android smartphone developers in the world.

It’s no secret that Web usage is increasingly shifting to mobile devices, a trend I expect to continue. With mobility continuing to take center stage in the computing revolution, the combination with Motorola is an extremely important event in Google’s continuing evolution that will drive a lot of improvements in our ability to deliver great user experiences.

Motorola Mobility has a great team with experience in developing solutions for mobile computing and for the home devices market. I’m impressed by the transformation of Motorola Mobility that the team there has initiated. I think they have an exciting product roadmap, a strong vision for the future and are poised for growth.

I think there’s an opportunity to accelerate innovation in the home business by working together with the cable and telco industry as we go through a transition to Internet protocol. Motorola also has a strong patent portfolio which will help protect Android from anti-competitive threats from Microsoft, Apple and other companies.

Many hardware partners have contributed to Android’s success and we look forward to continuing our work with all of them on an equal basis to deliver outstanding user experiences. We built Android as an open-source platform and it will stay that way. We’ve committed to that since the formation of the Open Handset Alliance nearly four years ago. Our plan is that Motorola will remain a licensee of Android.

Having spoken to some of the key partners of the Android ecosystem, they share our enthusiasm for this combination. I’m really excited about the acquisition and the possibilities it opens up for the Android ecosystem. My intention is to work closely with the Motorola teams and let Sanjay and his management team drive the business, that way we can supercharge both the Android ecosystem as well as the Motorola business.

David Drummond – Google Senior Vice President and Chief Legal Officer

On Patents

We’ve been saying for some time that we intend to protect the Android ecosystem; it’s under threat from some companies who are looking to use patents (technical difficulty).

And so I think while I’m not prepared to talk about specific strategies, we think that combining with Motorola and having that kind of a patent portfolio, which Sanjay can talk about in a moment, to protect the ecosystem is a good thing.

Sanjay Jha – Motorola Mobility Chairman & CEO

On Patents

Thanks, David. Just talking about the patent portfolio that we have here at Motorola Mobility, we have over 17,000 issued patents worldwide, we have on top of that over 7,500 patent applications in process. We have tremendous strength not only in wireless standards but also wireless non-essential patents which are the patents which are required to deliver competitive products in the marketplace. And as a result of the combination of these patents we believe we’ll be able to provide much better support to the businesses at Motorola Mobility as well as support the Android ecosystem.

Andy Rubin – Google Senior Vice President of Mobile (Android Founder)

On Ecosystem

I spoke yesterday to I think it was the top five Android licensees and they all showed very enthusiastic support for the deal. Android obviously was born as an open platform; it doesn’t make sense for it to be a single OEM. We want to go as wide as possible and obviously all of our existing OEM partners help make it what it is today.

Larry Page

On Ecosystem

I’m really excited about this deal and I think while there are competencies there that aren’t core to us so, we’re also — as I mentioned, we’re operating — we’ll plan to operate Motorola Mobility as a separate business so that they have competency there.

And I’m really excited about protecting and supporting the Android ecosystem. And I think that their patent on Android two and a half years ago has really paid off and there’s evidence from their success in the smartphone space.

And we really believe that Motorola Mobility has tremendous opportunity for growth and will really create a lot of value in the future.

And we really believe in the plans of the Motorola team, Sanjay and their vision for the future and really expect them to be successful. So I think this is a really unique opportunity and one that I’m tremendously excited about.

David Drummond

On Ecosystem

Sure, this is David. Look, I think that we’ve seen some very aggressive licensing demands in the Android ecosystem and we think this is a result of having the patent portfolio we’ll be able to make sure that Android remains open and vibrant and the kind of platform that lots of companies can (technical difficulty).

Andy Rubin

On Motorola and Ecosystem

Thank you. Look, I mean, Motorola existed as one of the really, really early licensees of Android, they were a founding member of the Open Handset Alliance. After this transaction nothing changes, they’re going to be a separate business and it’s business as usual for Android. So I see it as basically protecting the ecosystem and extending it as well.

David Drummond

On Regulatory Concerns

Sure, this is David. On the first question, this is a transaction obviously given its size that will require regulatory approval and a number — certainly in the United States, certainly in Europe and possibly some other jurisdictions.

We’re quite confident that this will be approved. We believe very strongly this is a pro-competitive transaction and there are lots of reasons for that. But a couple of them — Android has clearly added competition, innovation, increased user choice. We think that protecting that ecosystem is pro-competitive almost by definition.

This is not a horizontal transaction. Google has not materially been in the handset business, so we think there are — so this certainly doesn’t draw those kinds of concerns and we certainly think this is a very competitive transaction.

In terms of the — you mentioned terms of the agreement. I think we’ll be filing the agreement between Motorola and Google’s public filings. We’ll have the details of the agreement in those filings and those will be forthcoming shortly.

Andy Rubin

On Nexus Device Strategy and Ecosystem

Sure, and to add to Larry’s points, we have this strategy where we have the Nexus program and we have this lead device strategy.

That strategy has worked quite well to help focus the team. What we do is we select each — around Christmas time of each year we select a manufacturer that we work very closely with to release a device in that time frame.

That includes also semiconductor companies and all the components that go in the device. And essentially the teams huddle together in one building, they jointly work on these development efforts, they go on for 12 — nine to 12 months and ultimately at the holiday season or right before it devices pop out that are based on the this effort.

We don’t expect that to change at all. The acquisition is going to be run as a separate business; they will be part of that bidding process and part of that lead development process. And obviously Android remains open to other partners to use as they are today.

David Drummond

On Patent Defending

I think we’ve said for some time that we need to build our patent portfolio to make sure that Android and other businesses can be successful. So we will continue to do that.

Larry Page

Closing Remarks

Yes, absolutely. Thanks, Patrick. I think one thing I’d say is that we are really excited about this whole business and working with the Motorola team and all the employees and all the hard work there that’s gone on over the years. And we at Google are very excited about this and I think the Motorola Mobility folks are as well and there’s tremendous opportunity here.

Android is growing like crazy; we think that will benefit all partners in the Android ecosystem including Motorola. And we’re very excited about those opportunities going forward. It really allows us to supercharge the whole Android ecosystem.

They made a great bet on Android that was really successful and that’s made them the leading Android smartphone maker and we really believe that Motorola Mobility is poised for tremendous growth. And furthermore I’d say that the leading — they’re a leading home devices maker, that’s also a big opportunity. And we’re working with them and the industry to really accelerate innovation.

So with that I want to thank everyone for joining us on such short notice and thank all of the employees at Motorola Mobility and at Google for all of their hard work and for all of you for spending time with us this morning.